John P. Meier - The Marginal Jew

John P. Meier, The Marginal Jew,
v. 5, ch. 39: The Few, the Happy Few,
pp 230-363

(Detailed summary)

What do the parables reveal about the historical Jesus?

Summary

This chapter analyzes four parables which, on preliminary examination earlier, were considered good candidates for tracing back to the historical Jesus. We must now determine whether this is indeed the case.

The first parable is that of the mustard seed. This parable is attested by two sources, Mark and Q document, and therefore meets the criterion of multiple attestation. Despite certain differences, the two sources all present an introduction (the announcement of a comparison) and then proceed with three stages: 1) the mustard seed is sown in the earth/field/garden; 2) it grows to become a large plant; 3) the result of the growth is that the birds of the air dwell in its branches. In addition to the criterion of multiple attestation, the parable meets the criterion of coherence in that it describes well what we know of Jesus' preaching: Jesus constantly affirmed that (1) God's rule was already powerfully at work in his preaching and healing; and (2) however small his mission might seem at the time, there was a vital organic link between it and God's vast and visible coming to judge and save on the last day. So, despite appearances, the kingdom is present and growing - and yet, what a contrast between its modest beginnings and its grandiose denouement, when all the tribes of Israel, prefigured by Jesus' formation of the circle of Twelve, will be gathered together.

The second parable is that of the evil tenants of the vineyard. Since we can't use the criterion of multiple attestation (there's only one source, Mark, and it's repeated by Matthew and Luke), or the criterion of coherence (the parable could have been written by any Jew familiar with the wine-growing milieu), we'll use the criterion of embarrassment or discontinuity. Indeed, the analysis shows that the original parable ended with the killing of the son outside the vineyard, and that the two conclusions that follow were added later, because the sad ending of the parable was too shocking and embarrassing. This addition must have been made in two chronologically distinct stages. Jesus' ignominious death was seen to be avenged first in his resurrection, hence the reference to Ps 117, which makes the rejected stone the foundation of a new order, and then in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, hence the reference to the massacre of the vinedressers. In what context could Jesus have spoken this parable? Having presented himself throughout his ministry as the prophet Elijah of the end times, Jesus is simply bringing his self-understanding to its logical conclusion: his final fate will be similar to Israel's rejected prophets, including John the Baptist, his mentor, with the difference that Jesus sees himself as the culmination of the prophetic line and of Israel's history. Thus, Jesus suggests to his adversaries (i) that he knows full well the fate that awaits him as he continues his confrontation with them, and (ii) that he understands his terrible destiny in the context of Israel's salvation history.

The third parable is that of the great supper. The first question to be settled concerns the source of this parable: does it come from Q document, or from two sources that reached Matthew in the form of tradition M, and Luke in the form of tradition L? Having identified the basic "skeleton" of Matthew's and Luke's versions, and having determined Matthew's and Luke's respective editorial additions, we come to the conclusion that the basic narrative of the two versions is too similar for the two versions to be two independent parables, but that there are not enough common words in the same order for it to be the Q document: we are faced with two independent versions of the same parable, which came to Matthew in the form of tradition M, and to Luke in the form of tradition L, and so we can use the criterion of multiple attestation to declare that this parable goes back to the historical Jesus. What then would be its meaning in the mouth of Jesus? As an eschatological prophet in the manner of Elijah, Jesus would serve as a warning to his fellow Israelites that his message is so urgent precisely because it is the final invitation sent by God to his people. Their response to Jesus will determine whether they are admitted to the imminent eschatological banquet. To neglect or reject this summons because one is too busy with business, family or whatever, is to risk losing one's salvation. There will be no second chances. Other people will be invited to the banquet in place of the first guests who did not respond to the call.

The fourth parable is that of the talents/mines. As in the case of the previous parable, the major question to be answered concerns the source of Matthew's and Luke's versions: are they two different sources that came down to Matthew and Luke in the form of the M and L tradition, or is it the same source, known as Q document, that Matthew and Luke would have reworked in their own way? To answer this question, we'll proceed in the same way: identifying the basic skeleton and determining the respective editorial additions made by Matthew and Luke. At the end of this analysis, we must conclude that the source of Matthew and Luke is not the Q document, because the two versions of the parable do not contain that critical mass of similarities in vocabulary and grammatical construction to justify their attribution to the Q document. This conclusion allows us to use the multiple attestation criterion to argue that the parable probably dates back to the historical Jesus. But we can also use the coherence criterion. For there is a basic structure to Jesus' preaching: (1) Creator God has exercised his sovereign initiative in freely choosing to make Israel his people and lead them to salvation. (2) This free gift of election and salvation in turn calls for the obedience of the people who have freely accepted to enter into a covenantal relationship with their God. (3) This obedience in turn leads to the fullness of eschatological blessings that God has promised his faithful people from the beginning. Gracious election leads to faithful obedience, which leads to eschatological reward. The parable of the mines perfectly illustrates Jesus' preaching. The master of the parable exercises his sovereign initiative by giving his slaves money and responsibility. Indeed, in his total freedom as master of his slaves, he gives each slave precisely the amount of money he deems necessary. With the gift of money comes great responsibility; consequently, "good" slaves do their utmost to fulfill the mission entrusted to them. No specific reward has been promised to them for accomplishing their mission, but their master is in fact incredibly generous in rewarding his loyal slaves at the moment of rendering an account. Apparently, they keep the money they've earned while receiving greater responsibility for larger sums. On the other hand, slaves who shirk their duties are deprived of what they have been given and shamed in front of their peers.

The conclusion we reached in ch. 39 may have disappointed many readers: only four parables qualify to be traced back to the historical Jesus. Throughout these volumes on the quest for the historical Jesus, we have employed a rigorous method of historical criticism. This is not the time to abandon it when it comes to the parables, because we don't like the conclusions. And you can't be just a little critical, just as a woman can't be pregnant just a little.

It now remains to be seen whether the four candidates, chosen after a quick analysis, will survive a detailed analysis. We will therefore examine each of the parables, first by reviewing our basic understanding of its sources, structure and content, and then by asking again whether the parable meets the criteria of historicity.

The Mustard Seed (Mk 4:30-32 || Mt 13:31-32 || Lk 13:18-19)

Literal translation of the three versions of the parable. Mark's words or parts of words present in the other evangelists are underlined. What is in blue refers to what is common to Matthew and Luke (the Q document).

Mark 4	Matthew 13	Luke 13
30 And he was saying, "How should I compare the kingdom of God or in what parable I should put it?	31a Another parable he put before to them saying,	18 Therefore he was saying, "To what comparable is the kingdom of God and to what will I compare it?
31-32 As a grain of mustard, that when it would be sown upon the earth, smallest being of all the seeds the ones upon the earth, and when it would be sown, it goes up and becomes greater of all the garden plants and it makes branches large, so as it is able under the shade of it the birds of the sky to dwell.	31b-32 "Comparable is the kingdom of heavens to a grain of mustard that having taken a man he sowed in the field of him. On the one hand, the smallest it is of all the seeds, on the other hand when it is grown greater of the garden plants it is and it becomes a tree, so as to come the birds of the sky and to dwell in the branches of it."	19 Comparable it is to a grain of mustard that having taken a man he cast into a garden of him, and it grew and became into a tree, and the birds of the sky dwelt in the branches of it."

Note first that the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (logion 20) simply repeats and mixes the various versions of the parable. Next, let's note that this parable reflects an oral tradition that circulated in two forms, the one presented by Mark, and the one presented by the Q document (blue color). We have here a typical case where Mark and the Q document offer two versions of the same tradition: we have other examples with John the Baptist's announcement of someone who will baptize in the Holy Spirit (Mk 1: 7-8 || Mt 3: 11-12 || Lk 3: 15-18), or the image of the strong man who must be bound (Mk 3: 27 || Mt 12: 29 || Lk 3: 15-18), or the missionary discourse (Mk 6: 4-13 || Mt 10: 1. 5-15 || Lk 9: 1-5). Matthew usually merges the two traditional versions, while Luke tends to keep them separate.

When faced with two versions of a tradition, it's natural to wonder who has the original version. It's conceivable that, during his public ministry, Jesus took up the same parable several times, adapting it to suit his audience. Clearly, the parable took different forms in the oral tradition of the early church. But remarkably, the various versions retained the same basic structure and content. They all present an introduction (the announcement of a comparison) and then proceed with three stages: 1) the mustard seed is sown in the earth/field/garden; 2) it grows to become a great plant; 3) the result of growth is that the birds of heaven dwell in its branches.

This parable is a good example of its function of provoking the mind to think.

The kingdom of God is illuminated by a simple, well-known process of a mustard seed that, over time, grows into a shrub. The emphasis is on growth that comes from the plant's internal dynamics, not human effort.
Another theme running through the parable is the contrast between the beginning, the mustard seed, and the end, the vegetable plant. This contrast is underlined by the Q document's reference to a tree. Although the mustard seed is not in fact the smallest of seeds, in the Jewish world it represented that which is very small.
A third theme is suggested by the conclusion of the parable, as the birds of the air come to dwell in the branches of the plant (Mark speaks rather of the plant's shadow). The image suggests that it's a group that comes to take up residence in the branches. It's the idea of the dynamic expansion of God's reign reaching out to certain groups, happy to dwell in God's kingdom. Several biblical scholars have seen references to the OT in the image of the birds of the air coming to live under a tree: Ezek 31:3-6; 17:3-4, 22-23; Dan 4:10-12; LXX Ps 103:12. But close analysis shows that there is no exact parallel with these passages.
1. In the Septuagint version of Ezek 31:6, we read: "All the birds of the air have made their nests in its branches, and under its boughs all the animals of the plain have given birth; under its shade the whole multitude of nations have dwelt". The context is that of the prophet's threat to the mighty Egyptian empire, which will be humbled by a more powerful empire: the proud cypress tree will be cut down. It's hard to see how this image could serve as an analogy for the kingdom of God. Moreover, Mark's parable speaks of the mustard seed that became a vegetable, not a cypress. At most, the Q document speaks generally of a tree. The connection with Ezek 31:6 is unconvincing.
2. In Ezek 17:3-4, the image of a cedar whose crest is torn off by an eagle begins a long allegory about King Nebuchadnezzar who, in 597 BC, deposed King Jehoiachin of Judah and took him captive to Babylon, while placing Zedekiah on the throne of Judah in his place. Zedekiah, allied with Egypt, rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, who again exiled the king of Judah to Babylon, this time destroying Jerusalem (587/586 BC). Then, in Ezek 17:22-23, the prophet reworks this allegory into a more positive message. This time, God takes a branch (the Davidic lineage of the royal house of Judah) from the top of the cedar tree and plants it on a mountain in Israel. The branch becomes a great cedar (the restoration of the Davidic lineage). This new cedar becomes a great tree: "under it every beast will rest, and every bird will rest under its shade". This passage from Ezekiel has few words in common with the parable of the mustard seed, and the overall story is quite different. One also wonders how Galilean peasants of the 1st century, hearing this parable for the first time from the mouth of the historical Jesus, could grasp the scholarly allusions to various texts in Ezekiel.
3. Theodotion's version of Dan 4:10-12 has certain words and symbols in common with our parable: it speaks of a large tree under which wild animals live, and on whose branches the birds of the air alight. The meaning of the image, however, is totally different. For the great tree represents Nebuchadnezzar and his powerful, arrogant reign. This great tree will suddenly be felled by God's judgment. Moreover, Daniel announces that the king will experience a period of madness lasting seven years, before regaining his senses and honoring God. It's hard to see how this imagery relates to the parable of the mustard seed.
4. Some biblical scholars have proposed a comparison with LXX Ps 103:12, where by the streams that wind through the mountains, "the birds of the air gather, and from the midst of the rocks they make their voice heard". In this psalm, we have a simple, realistic description of nature, not a metaphor.
In conclusion, it should be noted that the four OT passages we have examined always associate wild animals with birds, which is not the case with the parable of the mustard seed. Moreover, the image of the "birds of the air" recurs a few times in the Synoptics (Mt 6:26; 8:20 || Lk 9:58; Lk 8:5) and evokes a general agricultural theme of the OT, without reference to any particular passage.

So there's no need to look for a reference to the OT in the last image of the parable. It simply states that God's royal reign at the end of time may start small and insignificant, but by its own internal dynamism it will expand to become a great reality offering a secure dwelling place for many.

Can we go further into the meaning of this parable? To do so, we need to place it in the wider context of the teaching and ministry of the historical Jesus. This wider context is one that we have been able to clarify over the course of the previous four volumes. For example, the second volume showed that Jesus was an eschatological prophet, similar to Elijah, who proclaimed a future kingdom of God that, to some extent, was already present and active in Jesus' ministry. The "already" aspect of the kingdom in Jesus' ministry undoubtedly seemed paltry and insignificant on the larger stage of Palestinian or Roman power politics. But Jesus affirmed that in his liberating action of exorcising demoniacs, "the kingdom of God has [already] come to you" (Mt 12:28 || Lk 11:20). Similarly, the sending of a group of twelve disciples on a brief preaching mission to various Israelite towns may have seemed to many an empty symbolic gesture. But through it all, Jesus was affirming that (1) God's rule was already powerfully at work in his preaching and healing; and (2) however small his mission might seem at the time, there was a vital organic link between it and God's vast and visible coming to judge and save on the last day. It is in this context that we must hear the message of the mustard seed: despite appearances, the kingdom is present and growing - and yet, what a contrast between its modest beginnings and its grandiose denouement, when all the tribes of Israel, foreshadowed by Jesus' formation of the circle of Twelve, will be gathered together. The mustard seed is a perfect example of parable as prophecy, using everyday reality as a symbol of an eschatology in which a contrasting "already" and "not yet" are organically linked. Once again, we see that the parables belong to Jesus primarily as a prophet rather than as a teacher of wisdom.

We can now answer the question: does the parable of the mustard seed go back to the historical Jesus? The answer is: yes. It meets the criterion of multiple attestation (Mark - Q document), and it also meets the criterion of coherence: it fits perfectly with the eschatological message and ministry of Jesus.

The Evil Tenents of the Vineyard (Mk 12:1-1-11 || Mt 21:33-43 || Lk 20:9-18)

Here is a very literal translation of the parable according to the versions of each evangelist. Words or parts of words in Mark that also appear in Matthew and Luke are underlined. Similar words in Matthew and Luke are highlighted in blue.

Mark 12	Matthew 21	Luke 20
1 And he began to them in parables to speak, "A vineyard a man planted and put around a fence and dug a pit for a winepress and built a tower and leased it to vinedressers and went abroad.	33 Hear another parable. "There was a man, a master of the house, who planted a vineyard and a fence to it he put around and dug in it a winepress and built a tower and leased it to vinedressers and went abroad.	9 Then, he began toward the people to say this parable, "A [certain] man planted a vineyard and leased it to vinedressers and went abroad for a long time.
2 And he sent toward the vinedressers at the (due) time a slave, in order by the vinedressers he would receive from the fruits of vineyard.	34 Then, when drew near the (due) time of the fruits, he send the slaves of him toward the vinedressers to receive the fruits of it.	10a and at (due) time he sent toward the vinedressers a slave in order from the fruit of the vineyard they will give him.
3 and taking him, they beat and sent empty.	35 and the vinedressers taking the slaves of him, one on the one hand they beat, one on the other hand they killed, one on the other hand they stoned.	10b-11a Then, the vinedressers sent him away empty, having beaten
4-5 and again he sent toward them another slave. And that one they struck on the head and dishonored. And another he sent. And that one they killed, and many others, ones on the one hand beating, ones on the other hand killing.	36 Again he sent other slaves more than the first, and they did to them likewise.	11b-12 and he planned to dispatch a different slave. Then, them and that one having beaten and dishonoring they sent away empty. And he planned to send a third. Then, them having wounded this one they cast out.
6 Yet one he was having a son beloved. He sent him last toward them saying that they will have respect for the son of me..	37 Then, afterward he sent toward them the son of him saying, "they will have respect for the son of me.	13 Then, he said the master of the vineyard, "What will I do? I will dispatch the son of me the beloved. Perhaps for this one they will have respect.
7 Then, those vinedressers toward themselves said that this one is the heir, come, let us kill him, and ours will be the inheritance.	38 Then, the vinedressers having seen the son said in themselves, "This one is the heir, come, let us kill him and have the inheritance of him.	14 Then, having seen him the vinedressers they were reasoning toward one another saying, "This one is the heir, let us kill him, in order that ours it might become the inheritance.
8 And having taken, they killed him and cast forth him outside the vineyard.	39 And having taken him, the cast forth outside the vineyard and killed.	15a And having cast forth him outside the vineyard they killed.
9 What [therefore] will do the master of the vineyard? He will come and will destroy the vinedressers and will give the vineyard to others.	40-41 Therefore, when might come the master of the vineyard, what will he do to those vinedressers?" Wretches wretchedly he will destroy them and the vineyard he will lease to other vinedressers, who will give him back the fruits in the (due) times of them.	15b-16 Therefore, what ill do to them the master of the vineyard? He will come and will destroy these vinedressers and will give the vineyard to others. Then, having heard, they said, "May it not happen!".
10-11 Then, this Scripture did you not read: the stone which rejected the ones building, this one became into head of corner. From Lord this happened, and it is marvelous in the eyes of us.	42 He say to them the Jesus, "Did you never read in the Scriptures: the stone which rejected the ones building, this one became into head of corner. From Lord this happened, and it is marvelous in the eyes of us.	17 Then, him, having looked at them said, "What therefore is this which has been written: the stone which rejected the ones building, this one became into head of corner.
		18 Everyone falling upon that stone will be broken to pieces. Then upon whoever perchance it might fall, it will crush him.

In ch. 38, we made a brief analysis of this parable and identified five stages:

the setting, in which a man plants a vineyard and rents it to farmers (tenants);
the sending of the owner's slaves to collect the farmers' fruits; the slaves are rejected, beaten and, in some cases, killed;
the sending of the owner's son, the latter hoping that the farmers would respect his son;
the murder of the son by the farmers, in the hope that they will inherit the vineyard;
the double conclusion, each conclusion beginning with a rhetorical question posed by Jesus and immediately followed by an answer or explanation from Jesus:
1. Jesus asks what the landowner will do, and answers himself that the landowner will destroy the farmers and rent out the vineyard to others;
2. Jesus asks: "Have you not read this text of Scripture?" and then explains his own question by quoting the LXX Ps 117:22-23: "The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the cornerstone".

Matthew's and Luke's versions are an independent reworking of Mark's text. The parable is also present in the Gospel of Thomas, but the latter simply merges the three versions, giving priority to Luke. All this does not allow us to use the criterion of multiple attestation to determine the authenticity of the parable. Can we then use the criterion of coherence with the wine-growing environment of Palestine? Unfortunately, this parable could have been composed by anyone familiar with the viticulture of the Eastern Mediterranean at the time. Nothing in the parable's "local color" requires the author to be Jesus of Nazareth or a Jewish Palestinian.

What other criterion can be used to determine the historicity of the parable? In fact, we could use the criterion of embarrassment or discontinuity. We'll do this in three steps.

Step one: The nimšāl as a literary genre distinct from the story of the parable

Earlier, we defined a parable as a short story with an introduction, middle and end. The Jesus of the Synoptics sometimes adds to the story, after it has ended, a sort of commentary or application, what the rabbis would later call a nimšāl. The nimšāl is not part of the parable, but serves to explain it or apply it to the current situation.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is an eloquent example. When the story is over, Luke's Jesus asks, "Who is my neighbor?", and after the lawyer answers, Jesus commands, "Do likewise". Thus, the nimšāl is literarily distinct from the parable. Elsewhere, it takes the form of a simple statement, short or long.
In a few cases where a parable has no nimšāl, a brief phrase at the beginning of the parable serves as a key to interpretation. This is the case in the parable of the wise builder and the foolish builder (Mt 7:24-26 || Lk 6:47-49); the two parts of the parable are introduced by the phrases: "Everyone who comes to me, hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you to whom he is comparable" and "But he who hears and does not put them into practice is comparable to". The same is true of the parable of the faithful and wise servant (Mt 24:45 || Lk 12:42) with its opening question: "Who then is the faithful and wise steward whom...?". On the other hand, some of Matthew's and Luke's parables offer no key to interpretation.
In the parables of the M tradition, some include a nimšāl, some don't. The parable of the good grain and the tares is followed by a lengthy allegorical explanation, while the parables of the treasure hidden in the field and the pearl have no nimšāl, that of the fishing net is followed by an allegorical and eschatological explanation as long as the parable itself, that of the unforgiving debtor and the workers of the eleventh hour presents a brief general application, that of the two sons contains a nimšāl longer and more specific, that of the guest without a wedding garment displays only a brief generic comment, as does that of the ten virgins.
The parables in the L tradition show a similar blend to that seen in the M tradition. The following parables contain a form of application or explanation that follows the parable: the Good Samaritan, the Night Friend, the Foolish Rich Man, the Tower Builder, the King Gone to War, the Lost Coin, the Skillful Manager, the Servant Who Only Did His Duty, the Widow and the Unjust Judge, the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. On the other hand, any nimšāl is absent from the following parables: The Barren Fig Tree, The Rich Man and Lazarus.

What can we learn from this brief overview? Firstly, this type of explanation is not essential to the literary genre of the synoptic parable. Secondly, these explanations can take different forms, short or long, specific or generic, comprising an affirmation or a question, with a more or less close link to the parable. Finally, the more we move forwward in time, from Mark (who has no nimšāl, except that of the evil tenants of the vineyard) to Luke via the Q document and Matthew, the nimšāl tend to multiply, which raises the question : do the nimšāl really go back to the historical Jesus?

Step two: Relating the double conclusion of the parable of the evil tenants of the vineyard to the parable itself

Keeping in mind the function and frequency of the nimšāl, let's examine the parable of the evil tenants of the vineyard, reminding us that the nimšāl only appears when the parable is over, and doesn't contribute to the plot. Let's look at the five stages of the parable.

The setting (Mk 12:1) uses verbs in the aorist tense (= a completed action in the past tense): a man planted, surrounded, built, rented, left. The main character is the owner/father, with the vinedressers only introduced at the end. The action takes place between the two.
The sending of slaves (vv. 2-5) to the vinedressers is described only with aorist verbs: he sent, they beat, they sent, they struck, they killed.
The sending of the owner's son begins with an imperfect tense (a past tense that lasts): "he had a beloved son", but continues with the aorist.
The murder of the son is also described with the aorist.
The aorist chain ends with a double conclusion consisting of two rhetorical questions.
1. The first rhetorical question uses the future tense ("what will he do?"), and when Jesus answers his own question, he also uses the future tense ("he will come, he will destroy, he will give").
2. In the second rhetorical question, the owner of the vineyard and the vinedressers disappear from view, as the question is addressed directly to the audience. Although the text returns with the use of the aorist, we are no longer in the parable proper.

Step three: Six questions about the form and content of the parable

Our analysis leads us to ask six questions about the form and content of the parable.

Where does the parable itself end? The story, presented as a past event, ends when Jesus, the narrator, intervenes to ask a future-tense question about a future event, a question he himself answers with future-tense verbs. This sudden change of verb tense and Jesus' abrupt intervention signal that the story proper has ended in v. 8 with the death of the son and the outrage of his body. What a sad and shocking ending! The farmers kill the heir, desecrate his body by denying him a decent burial, and carry out their plan to take possession of the vineyard. If this really is the end of the original story, then we can understand the need to add a more satisfying conclusion, one that will allow the tension to subside.
But is this what the first conclusion does, with its rhetorical question and answer in v. 9? In a way, the answer is: yes. Let's remember that the two main characters are the landowner and the vinedressers, introduced at the very beginning of the story. But by the end, only the vinedressers remain on the scene, with the story ending in the repugnant injustice of murder. This moral and aesthetic imbalance is remedied by the first conclusion: the landowner, the main actor, restores justice by destroying the murderers, and also restores the initial situation by renting out the vineyard to others.
Does the first conclusion of the parable in v. 9 still provide a satisfactory conclusion? Only to a certain degree, as it leaves unresolved the murder of the beloved only son on whose body all the bodies of the slaughtered farmers have accumulated. This is why a second conclusion is required, introduced by Jesus' rhetorical question followed by the final resolution through the quotation from the Septuagint version of Ps 117:22-23.
But how can the second conclusion offer a final resolution to the tragic tale when, within the world of the parable, the son is dead and will remain dead? A major shift in perspective is signaled by the introduction of new actors in Mk 12:10-11: the audience listening to the parable ("Did you not read..."). Throughout Mark's chs. 11 and 12, this audience is made up of the temple authorities, hostile to Jesus. Jesus questions them about their reading and understanding of Psalm 117:22-23. This quotation from the psalm introduces two new actors: the anonymous builders who rejected the stone, and the Lord who made this stone the cornerstone of an otherwise unidentified building.

With this second conclusion, we have left the world of the parable behind us. The only link with the parable is the name "Lord", referring in v. 9 to the owner of the vineyard, and in v. 11 to the Lord God. By identifying the Lord God with the owner of the vineyard, the builders of whom the psalm speaks must be identified with the vinedressers. As for the stone, which undergoes the negative action of the builders and the positive action of God, it necessarily refers to the beloved son killed by the vinedressers. So it's only with the quotation from Ps 117 that the tension of the story eases: even though the vinedressers have rejected the son by killing him, the owner of the vineyard, with a dazzling gesture that leaves the audience speechless, reverses this rejection and makes his son the key, triumphant figure in a new order of things.

For Mark's audience, and for all Christian readers, all this clearly refers to Jesus' resurrection following his rejection by the Jewish authorities and his death. Note that while the first conclusion presents us with punitive justice (the massacre of the guilty), the second conclusion presents us with redemptive justice. At this point, however, we have left the world of what is humanly possible and entered the world of God.
Are we justified in referring to the first and second conclusions of the parable as an application, or an explanation, or a nimšāl of the parable just as we have done with the other synoptic parables? The answer to this question is "no". In the other synoptic parables, the nimšāl, when present, provides either (1) an explanatory allegory of the various elements of the parable (for example, the separation of the good from the righteous in the story of the fishing net), either (2) the assurance that God answers the prayer of the suffering person (e.g. parable of the widow and the unjust judge), or (3) a general truth for all (the last shall be first in the story of the workers of the eleventh hour), or (4) a challenge to the audience of the parable ("do likewise" in the Good Samaritan).

Note that the nimšāl is added only after the story has been completed. The story itself is complete. The nimšāl is not intended to complete the story and bring it to a satisfactory conclusion, but simply to clarify the lesson contained in the parable, to make explicit its point that might seem enigmatic.

In this context, the parable of the evil tenants of the vineyard stands out from all the synoptic parables, and our analysis points to a probable history of the tradition. Presumably, at the source of this tradition is the basic narrative reflected in Mk 12:1-8. But the story's shocking and troubling ending, lacking an acceptable resolution, called for the two different conclusions we have. This development or expansion of the parable must have taken place in two chronologically distinct stages. First, Jesus' ignominious death was avenged in his resurrection, hence the reference to Ps 117, which makes the rejected stone the foundation of a new order, and then in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, hence the reference to the massacre of the vinedressers.
What is the consequence or benefit of this analysis of the form and tradition of the parable of the evil tenants of the vineyard in terms of its authenticity/historicity? A hypothetically possible scenario for the parable is as follows: confronted by his adversaries (probably the temple authorities) as the last Passover feast of his life approaches around the year 30, Jesus pronounces a prophetic judgment through a veiled allegorical parable in which he sums up the history of Israel with all its lineage of prophets sent by God to his people. The story's tragic denouement stems from the fact that all the prophets are rejected and some tortured by the authorities. So far, the story reflects the traditional history of Israel (see Jer 7:24-28; 2 Chr 36:13-31; Neh 9:26-37). But what is new and daring in the story is the sending, not of another prophet, but of the son, and making this sending the climax of the story. And the shocking finale revolves around the murder of this son and the act of disposing of his body without giving it a burial, an infamy unimaginable in the ancient Mediterranean basin. Thus, Jesus suggests to his adversaries (i) that he knows full well the fate that awaits him as he continues his confrontation with them, and (ii) that he understands his terrible destiny in the context of Israel's salvation history.

Having presented himself throughout his ministry as the prophet Elijah of the end times, Jesus only brings his self-understanding to its logical conclusion: his final fate will be similar to Israel's rejected prophets, including John the Baptist, his mentor, with the difference that Jesus sees himself as the culmination of the prophetic line and of Israel's history. To use the metaphorical terms of the parable, he is not just another slave, but the son. But we need go no further with the meaning of the word "son", as it is limited to his relationship with the owner and his role in the paroxysm of the story. In short, if this is the meaning of the original parable, then Jesus is passing prophetic judgment in the form of a parable that ends with his death at the hands of the temple authorities. This is the end of the parable, period. There is no resolution or reversal of this tragic injustice within the story itself.

On the basis of this analysis, we can easily find arguments for tracing the parable back to the historical Jesus. For it is inconceivable that the early church would have created such a parable around the story of Israel's salvation, which would simply have ended with the tragic end of Jesus and his triumphant enemies, without a reversal of the situation. From the earliest days of the first Christian communities, any reference to Jesus' death was always accompanied by a reference to his ascension or resurrection or exaltation. We need only think of the pre-Pauline formulas ("Christ died... was buried, was raised on the third day..." see 1 Cor 15:3-5; Rom 4:25; Phil 2:6-11). Similarly, in Peter's kerygmatic discourse, we find the form: "You crucified him... but God raised him from death": Acts 4: 10). But there's more. Pre-Pauline formulas and certain kerygmatic speeches in Acts agree in affirming one aspect of Jesus' death: he was buried (see 1 Cor 15:4: "he was buried"; see also Acts 2:29-32; 13:29). This burial is attested by several passages, including Mk 15:42-47 and Jn 19:38-42. This fundamental conviction of the early Christians collides with the story of the evil tenants of the vineyard, in which the son is not buried. This is a criterion of discontinuity that confirms that the parable cannot be a creation of the first Christians and that, on the contrary, it takes on its full meaning in the mouth of Jesus.

By contrast, the two conclusions to the parable (the punishment of the adversaries and the vindication of the son) are a creation of the early Christians in the light of the Easter faith, which intends to overturn the embarrassing finale of Jesus dying in dishonor. This assertion, particularly in the case of the second conclusion, is reinforced by observation of the place occupied by the "stone", not only in reference to Ps 117:23-23 (LXX), but also in reference to several OT passages that have been seen as a reference to Jesus rejected by some, accepted by others. For example:

"This is the stone you builders threw away: it has become the cornerstone" (Acts 4:11).

"as it is written: Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling block, a rock that makes one fall; but whoever believes in him will not be put to shame" (Rom 9:33, which combines Isa 28:16 and Isa 8:14).

"For we find in Scripture: Behold, I lay in Zion a cornerstone, chosen and precious, and he who trusts in it shall not be put to shame. To you then, the believers, the honor; but to the unbelievers the stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone, and also a stumbling block, a rock that makes one fall" (1 Pet 2:6-8 where the author quotes Is 28:16, Ps 117:22 and Is 8:14).

"You have been incorporated into the building which has the apostles and prophets as its foundation, and Jesus Christ himself as its cornerstone" (Eph 2:20).

In conclusion, we can say that the parable of the evil tenants of the vineyard can join that of the mustard seed in the group of parables for which we can find good arguments about their authenticity and trace them back to the historical Jesus.

The Great Supper (Mt 22:2-14 || Lk 14:16-24)

This is a very literal translation of the Greek versions of Matthew and Luke. In blue are words or parts of words common to Matthew and Luke, and attributed to the Q document.

Matthew 22	Luke 14	Coptic Gospel of Thomas 64
2 "Has been compared the kingdom of heavens to a man king, who did a wedding feast to the son of him.	16 Then, him, he said to him, "A certain man was doing a supper big, and he invited many.	Jesus said: "A man had guests, and, after preparing the supper,
3 And he sent the slaves of him to invite those having been invited into the wedding feast, and they did not want to come.	17-18a And he sent the slave of him at the hour of the supper to say to those having been invited, 'Come, for already ready it is.' And they began from one (voice) all to excuse themselves.	he sent the slave of him to invite the guests.
4-5 Again he sent other slaves saying, 'Say to those having been invited, Behold the dinner of me I had prepared, the bull of me and the fattened (animal) had been slaughtered and all (things) (are) ready. Come to the wedding feast. Then, those having paid no attention went away, on the one hand, one into the own field, on the other hand one upon the business of him.	18b The first said to him, 'A field I bought and I have a need having come out to see it. I beg you, have me (as) having been excused.'	He went to the first and said: 'My master invites you.' The latter said: 'I have money for some merchants; they're coming to my house tonight, and I'm going to give them some orders. I apologize for the meal.'
	19 An another said, 'Pair of oxen I bought five and I am going to test them. I beg you, have me (as) having been excused.'	He went to another and said, "My master invites you. He said: "I've bought a house and I'm needed for one day. I won't be available.'
6 Then the remainings having laid hold of the slaves of him mistreated and killed.	20 And another said, 'A woman I have married and because of that I am not able to come.'	He came to another and said, 'My master invites you.' He said: My friend is getting married and I'm going to cook the meal; I am not able to come. I apologize for the meal.'
		He went to another and said: "My master invites you. He said: I've bought a farm, I'm going to collect the royalties; I won't be able to come. I apologize.'
7 Then the king was angry and having sent the armies of him he destroyed the murderers these and the city of them he burned.	21 And having arrived the slave reported to the lord of him these (things). Thereupon, having become angry the master of the house said to slave of him, 'Go out quickly into the wide streets and alleys of the cities and the poors and the crippled and the blinds and the lame bring in here.'	The slave returned; he said to his master: 'Those you invited to the meal have apologized.'
8 Thereupon he says to the slaves of him, 'On the one hand, the wedding feast ready is, on the other hand the having been invited were not worthy.	22 And said the slave, 'Lord, 'It happened what you have ordered, and still place is'.
9-10 Therefore, go upon the thoroughfares of the roads and, as many as you might find, invite into the wedding feast. And having gone out the servants these into the roads they gather all those they found, both bad and good. And became full the wedding (hall) of reclining (people).'"	23 And said the lord toward the servant, ' Go out into the roads and paths and compel to enter, in order that might be filled of me the house.'	The master said to the slave of him: 'Go along the roads, and if you find anyone, bring them in for the meal.
	24 For I say to you that no one of the men these of those having been invited will taste of me the supper."	Buyers and merchants shall not enter the places of my Father.'"
11-14 Then, having entered the king to look upon those reclining, he saw there a man not being dressed in wedding clothes, and he say to him: 'Friend, how did you enter here not having wedding clothes? Then, him he was speechless. Thereupon the king said to the servants, 'Having bound of him the feet and hands, cast him out into the darkness the outer. There it will be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth. For many are called, then few selected.

The Question of Sources and Redaction in the Versions of Matthew and Luke

The big question is that of sources: are we looking at the same parable from the Q document, which Matthew and Luke have reformulated in their own way, or are we looking at two different sources of the same parable, which came to Matthew through the M tradition, and to Luke through the L tradition? This is an important question, because if we are looking at two different sources, we can use the criterion of multiple attestation to argue that the parable goes back to the historical Jesus. How do we answer it?

We'll proceed in four stages. First, we'll analyze the structure of the two versions and try to identify a basic "skeleton", while noting their major differences. Next, we'll examine Matthew's version in detail to detect phrases or ideas that reflect his writing style and theology. Then we'll do the same with Luke. Finally, we'll put together the results of our analysis to find an explanation for the two versions of the parable we have.
1. The bare minimum that Matthew and Luke have in common, with a brief list of their differences
  
  This is the lowest common denominator.
  1. Introduction: a large meal. A man (Mt: king) gives a large festive meal (Mt: a wedding banquet; Lk: an evening meal or supper with many guests)
  2. The man sends his slaves to call the guests. In Matthew, a group of slaves are sent, while in Luke it's just one.
  3. Short statement of refusal.
  4. Detailed statement of refusal. On this point there is divergence in Matthew and Luke.
    1. In Matthew's story, the king sends other slaves on a second mission, who are met with two different responses: some ignore the invitation and go off either to their fields or to their trade, while others seize the slaves, insult and kill them. The guests say nothing to express their refusal.
    2. In Luke, there is only one slave delegation, and the refusal is expressed in different ways by three guests: the first has bought a field and needs to see it, the second has bought five pairs of oxen and needs to try them out, the third has just married. The slave returns to his master to inform him.
  5. The angry response of the host. Anger is expressed differently.
    1. In Matthew, the king sends his troops to slaughter the murderers of his slaves and burn down their towns, then, in revenge for the insult of the first guests, asks to invite substitutes, anyone the slaves meet along the way.
    2. In Luke, the man's anger immediately leads to the replacement of the guests by substitutes, which takes place in two stages: first, the slave is sent to every corner of the city to invite the marginalized (the poor, the crippled, the blind, the lame); then, since there is still room in the banquet hall, he is sent outside the city to force all those he finds to come to the banquet.
  What to do with this lowest common denominator? There are three possible solutions to the question of sources.
  1. We are faced with two different parables, offering two different stories whose kinship is purely coincidental.
  2. We have before us a parable of the Q document taken up by Matthew and Luke in different ways
  3. We're dealing with the same parable, but according to different sources, i.e. M and L, that reached Matthew and Luke.
  What can we conclude?
  1. The first solution is unlikely. There are too many elements in common for it to be a mere coincidence. Both versions feature a similar plot, a list of similar characters who act in similar ways, and the action unfolds in five stages:
    1. A man gives a big evening meal
    2. He sends slaves (or a slave) to call those who have already been invited.
    3. Contrary to all rules of honor and courtesy, all guests refuse to come.
    4. The worldly interests of a few (field, business) suggest that the basic problem stems from the fact that personal interests are more important than the intention to insult the host.
    5. Angry, the man retaliates by inviting people who are socially inferior to the first guests.
    So we're looking at the same parable, but with two different versions. We find a recurring theme in Jesus' teaching, that of eschatological reversal (see the Beatitudes, the evil tenants of the vineyard, "many will come from east and west...") where those on the inside find themselves on the outside, and the neglected inherit God's promise.
  2. What about the second solution? Let's remember that a pericope is defined as coming from Q document if its basic content, present in both Matthew and Luke, and absent from Mark, shares a fairly substantial common vocabulary in the same order with common syntactic constructions (see the pericopes usually recognized as coming from Q document by biblical scholars). Unfortunately, in our parable, common vocabulary in the same order is too rare to conclude that we are looking at a pericope from the Q document. Here's the list of common words.
    1. There is a "man" who "did" (past tense in Mt, imperfect tense in Lk)
    2. The word "to call" is used throughout the story, both in the sense of "to invite" and in the sense of "invited".
    3. The verb "to come" appears in different tenses and compound forms
    4. Not surprisingly, the verb "to say" appears several times
    5. We find both the verb "to prepare" and the adjective "ready".
    6. On hearing of the refusal, the host becomes "angry".
    7. The name "city" appears in both versions
    8. The name "road" is used in both versions
    9. In both versions the banquet hall is filled, although Matthew and Luke use two different Greek verbs for the word "fill".
    10. Finally, various Greek verbs are used to describe the action of bringing people to the banquet
    We shouldn't be impressed by this list, for it contains many words regularly found elsewhere in the gospel parables (say, do, come, man, city, road). It merely confirms that we're looking at the same basic parable. Unfortunately, there aren't enough common words and the syntax isn't similar enough to conclude that we're looking at a Q document pericope.
  3. After eliminating the first two solutions, we are left with the third: we would be faced with the same parable, but one that would have reached Matthew and Luke from different sources, i.e. M and L. But once this solution is accepted, many questions remain: in what form did the source M reach Matthew, orally or in writing? The same question arises for Luke's L source. The best we can do is to analyze each of the evangelists on the basis of what we know about how Matthew and Luke usually modify when they copy Mark or the Q document, and what we know about their respective theologies. By removing what appears to be the redactional part of the parable, we can compare what remains with the elementary structure we spotted at the very beginning.
2. An analysis of Matthew's editorial features in Mt 22:1-10
  
  Matthew likes to introduce his parables with the expression "the kingdom of heaven is like...". He also likes to feature kings, notables and wealthy people. He also likes to expand simple stories into a grand allegory of salvation history. Thus, a simple festive meal becomes a wedding feast (= the eschatological banquet) that a king (= God the Father) gives for his son (= the exalted Jesus).
  
  Matthew seems to have borrowed allegorical features from the parable of the evil tenants of the vineyard, such as the multiplication of slave delegations and the murder of slave delegations. While the murder of slaves could be explained in the parable of the evil tenants of the vineyard by the desire to inherit, it cannot be explained in the case of wedding invitations. What's more, the fact that the king sends the murderers to be slaughtered not only breaks the plot of the story, while a hot meal awaits the guests, but also makes it implausible. Matthew is clearly referring to the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem. After killing all the guests and reducing their city to ashes, the king coldly and dispassionately remarks to his slaves: "Those who were invited were not worthy." There's something almost comical about this understatement in the midst of such an exaggerated narrative. The king now replaces those who refused to come by sending his slaves outside the city to summon to the evening meal anyone they can find, strangers.
  
  Matthew now adds one of his typical themes, the mixture of "bad and good" in today's world and in the Church that lives in it. Note that he has reversed the usual order of "good and bad" in preparation for the distinct parable of the unclothed wedding guest that follows. Having turned the parable into an allegory of salvation history in the present age, for Matthew the denouement of salvation history will take place at the end of time, in a final judgment that will bring about the definitive separation of the wicked from the good, the former being punished as they deserve, as will be the case with the guest without a wedding garment.
  
  Let's summarize Matthew's editorial features
  1. The host has been promoted to king, and the festive meal has been transformed into a wedding banquet for the royal son. The theme of the wedding banquet refers back to the parable of the ten virgins in Mt 25:1-13, a parable with strong Matthean editorial features, if not a Matthean creation.
  2. The two separate delegations with different slaves make no sense in the original parable of the royal feast, but make perfect sense in Matthew's version of the parable of the evil tenants of the vineyard. There, the first delegation is either beaten, killed or stoned to death, necessitating a second delegation made up of different slaves. This is not the case in the primitive form of the royal feast.
  3. The killing of all the slaves in the second delegation is completely out of place in a story where friends are invited to a wedding feast. It echoes the theme of the fate of the martyred prophets, a theme that takes on its full meaning in the allegory of the evil tenants of the vineyard. In Matthew's version of the royal feast, the theme of the killing of the slaves seems to be reapplied to the killing of the Christian "prophets" (i.e. the first Christian missionaries).
  4. The sending of the troops and the burning of the city are clearly allegorical and do not fit with the basic story of the original parable.
  5. The theme of the "bad and the good" at the end of the main parable is a theological preoccupation of Matthew, who introduces the secondary parable of the guest without a wedding garment.
  When we remove these editorial features from the parable, we find what we identified earlier as the lowest common denominator of the two versions of the parable.
  1. A man (apparently quite wealthy) gives a festive meal
  2. He sends his slave(s) to summon the guests who had previously been invited to the meal.
  3. The guests insult the host. Indeed, they all refuse to come to the feast, despite the host's insistence that everything is now ready.
  4. The angy host, who has been disgraced by the first guests, takes revenge by summoning to his meal all those his slaves meet by chance on the various roads outside the city
  5. Thus, the host's honor is restored by the fact that his banquet hall is filled with guests, while the first guests are implicitly dishonored by being replaced by people of lower social status.
3. An analysis of Luke's editorial features in Lk 14:16-24
  
  Discerning Luke's editorial traits is a challenge.
  1. On the one hand, unlike Matthew, Luke does not tend to allegorize parables to any great extent, which makes it impossible to identify large editorial blocks.
  2. On the other hand, typical Lucan theological themes are visible, such as the antitheses rich-poor, elite-marginal, and the danger of being absorbed by worldly goods and cares. There is also a light touch of allegory in the story of salvation. For example, after the rejection of the original guests, sending out new invitations to the feast twice is really not necessary. The first new invitation is addressed to the economically and socially marginalized living in the host's city. Then, as there's still room, the second new invitation is apparently addressed to people outside the city. In Luke's mind, these two messages represent in miniature the story of Christian mission, first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles.
  Let's take a look at Luke's version and try to identify the editorial elements.
  1. In his introduction, Luke uses the expression "a certain man", typical of his parables (Lk 10:25; 11:1-8; 12:13-21; 13:1-9; 14:25-33; 15:1-3.8-10.11-32; 18:1-8.9-14).
  2. In Luke, a single slave is sent to the first guests. In Luke's parable of the evil tenants of the vineyard, however, a single slave is also sent, unlike in Matthew and Mark. We can therefore suspect a feature of Luke.
  3. The guests all apologize at the last minute, which is part of the story line. But the wording of the apology may come from Luke's hand. In fact, there are traces of the evangelist's vocabulary and style. Then, the repetition of the apology reflects his own pattern. Then, the content of the apology echoes some of his themes, such as the obstacle of matrimonial ties to discipleship. Finally, the structure of Luke's parable is similar to that of the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is a creation of the evangelist. On the one hand, in the Good Samaritan three characters see the man left half-dead, and the climax is reached with the third, a Samaritan who cares for the wounded man. In the Great Supper, there are three characters who refuse, and the climax is reached with the third who makes no apology, but simply says: "I am not able to come". The plot is also resolved in two stages. In The Good Samaritan, the Samaritan first takes care of the wounded man and brings him to the innkeeper, then, the next day, he gives what is needed to take care of the wounded man. Similarly, in the Great Supper, the feasting hall is first filled with the city's poor and disabled, then, in a second stage, with people from outside the city. In itself, this structure does not prove beyond doubt Luke's editorial work. But the absence of such a structure in Matthew, and present in a typically Lucan parable, favors the idea that we're looking at Luke's hand.
  4. One verb plays an important role in the refusal of guests: the Greek verb paraiteomai, which we have translated as: to apologize. It is a verb composed of the verb aiteo (to request) and the preposition para (from, beside).
    1. In ancient Greek, the verb is used very little, and has only a relatively narrow range of basic meanings: "to beg from another", "to ask for a favor", "to avoid by entreaty", "to decline", "to refuse", "to reject" and "to avoid". From there, several other meanings expand to include "demand exemption from", "ask to be excused", "decline an invitation", "divorce or dismiss a spouse", "to relieve by medical means" and "beg off" (especially to avoid punishment). Within this broader framework, the specific meaning of "decline an invitation to a meal" represents a minor meaning, and the even more specific Lucan meaning in our immediate context, "ask to be excused from a previously accepted invitation to a meal", is rare.
    2. In the Septuagint, the verb appears only eight times, with a range of meanings such as "to ask permission" (to be excused from a meal), "to entreat", "to excuse" and "to ask forgiveness" (for what one has already done).
    3. In the NT, the verb occurs slightly more frequently, twelve times. Most texts use the verb in the sense of "to entreat", "to reject" or "to avoid".
    What do all these ancient texts reveal? While the idea of dispensing with an obligation or invitation appears in both the Septuagint and secular Greek, nowhere do we find Luke's specific meaning: to be excused from a social obligation that one has already accepted. But what is remarkable is to find the exact equivalent of Luke's phrase ("I beg you, have me (as) having been excused") in a Latin epigram: excusatum habeas me rogo (I beg you, have me excused). Given Luke's vast knowledge and his use of a wide variety of Greek styles, as well as a number of Latinisms in his two works, we shouldn't be surprised to see him use a Latinism in his version of the parable. We'd be looking at Luke's editorial work.
  5. The content of the apologies supports the idea of Luke's editorial work. Indeed, the three reasons for apology suggest people belonging to the upper class, an elite preoccupied with acquiring property or preoccupied with wealth (a wedding in the Greco-Roman world was an important commercial exchange). And this reflects an important theme in Luke about the use of wealth and concern for the disadvantaged in society.
  In short, it would be a mistake to think that Luke's version reflects the original parable, since several elements of his redaction have been noted. These include the introductory phrase "a certain man", the setting of a single slave, the formulation of the three excuses, the slave's dual mission, the invitation to the poor and crippled, which echoes Jesus' earlier request to his host (Lk 14:13) to invite the poor and crippled who can give nothing in return, and the invitation to the people outside the city, the most geographically and sociologically remote. Even the conclusion, with the surprising expression "I tell you" as the host addresses his slave, is said to come from Luke's hand.
  
  What remains pre-Lucan in this analysis? The parable begins with an unidentified man (but clearly a wealthy person, e.g. the head of a large family) organizing a large festive meal. Having already invited the guests, he sends one (or more) slave(s) to warn them that everything is ready and that they must now come to the banquet. Instead, and contrary to natural expectations, all those invited apologize for not coming. Reacting angrily, the host sends his slave(s) to gather into his banquet hall everyone the slave(s) may meet in the streets or alleyways. As a result, the banquet hall is filled with a wide variety of people, including outcasts.
4. The correlation between the three analyses
  
  If we compare (i) the hypothetical outline of the parable that we have extracted from the lowest common denominator of Matthew's and Luke's versions, (ii) the Matthean form of the parable minus the Matthean editorial features, and (iii) the Lucan form of the parable minus its Lucan editorial features, we get roughly the same parable in each case.
  
  Let's take this lowest common denominator.
  1. Setup (The Summons to the feast). A man gives a festive meal for a large group of guests
  2. First Stage of Plost. The host sends his slave(s) to summon the guests.
  3. Second Stage of Plot (Problems arise). The guests all refuse to come to the meal, under the pretext of commercial interests.
  4. Third Stage of Plot (Return of slave(s). Report by slave(s) of refusal.
  5. Fourth Stage of Plot (The host's reaction and resolution of the problem). In anger, the host asks to invite anyone who happens to be in the way. The result is that the room is full and the host implicitly receives gratitude from the new guests, while the original guests find themselves ashamed to have been replaced by people of lower status.
  We can imagine that this lowest common denominator must have evolved in the course of its oral transmission before reaching Matthew in the form of tradition M and Luke in the form of tradition L. Thus, Matthew and Luke are not using Q document here, but two independent traditions. This conclusion allows us to use the multiple attestation criterion and affirm that this parable probably dates back to the historical Jesus.
  
  But what form could this parable have taken on Jesus' lips? It's impossible to reconstruct the formulation it had on Jesus' lips, especially since Jesus had to constantly rework it to suit his audience. We can, however, attempt to reconstruct the meaning it conveyed during his ministry, using the portrait of Jesus we have built up of him in the previous four volumes, based on what is probably historical evidence.
  
  Unlike the parable of the evil tenants of the vineyard, the parable of the Great Supper is not about a relatively small number of tenant farmers tending a vineyard. Indeed, many people have been invited to a "great meal" (Luke 14:16) or to a "wedding feast for the son" of a king (Mt 22:2). The considerable efforts made to fill the banquet hall at the end of the parable (Mt 22:9-10; Lk 14:21-23) also underline the large number of people involved. Earlier, we saw how Jesus used the imagery of the meal to depict the eschatological banquet or final salvation. If the meal symbolizes final salvation in God's kingdom, it's hardly surprising that the guests are not a relatively small group (as the tenant farmers would be), but rather "many". The breadth of this imagery seems to argue in favor of the idea that the guests to whom the slaves (= prophets) are sent are the people of Israel as a whole. Jesus, then, as an eschatological prophet in the manner of Elijah, would serve notice to his fellow Israelites that his message is so urgent precisely because it is the final invitation sent by God to his people. Their response to Jesus will determine whether they are admitted to the imminent eschatological banquet. To neglect or reject this summons because you're too busy with business, family or whatever, is to risk losing your salvation. There will be no second chances. Other people will be invited to the banquet in place of the first guests who did not respond to the call. The identity of these others is not clear in the original form of the parable. Other parables indicate that the historical Jesus did indeed prophesy the inclusion of Gentiles in the eschatological banquet, while some Israelites would find themselves excluded.
  
  If we accept the line of interpretation that sees Jesus alluding to the inclusion of Gentiles, we need to bear in mind two important points: (1) Jesus is speaking metaphorically of the final day of salvation, not of the ongoing course of Israel's history in this present world. Only on the last day will some Gentiles be included and some Israelites excluded. There is no idea of a mission to the Gentiles before the last day, contrary to what will rapidly develop in the early Church. (2) Similarly, Jesus' warning to his fellow Israelites should not be interpreted as a threat that Israel as a whole might be excluded from final salvation. In the concrete context of his ministry, Jesus would at any time have uttered this parable to this or that group of his fellow Jews, as a salutary warning not to ignore his last urgent message, on pain of suffering the consequences on the last day. Each person hearing the parable would have been challenged by the story to place themselves with those who accepted the invitation, and not with those who rejected it.
Is the Version of This Parable in the Gospel of Thomas Independent of the Synoptics?

Let's recall the trends we noted in the Gospel of Thomas (GT) in ch. 38.
1. It tends to combine two or three versions of the synoptic gospels
2. It tends to abbreviate the narrative while adding elements that serve its hermeneutics
3. When it makes amalgams, it often gives preference to the Gospel according to Luke
4. It tends to diminish or eliminate or reject links with the OT, salvation history, Judaism or the early church.
Knowing GP's tendencies, it will come as no surprise that it shares few words with Matthew's version of the parable. Let's briefly recall the conclusions of our analysis of the parable in Matthew.

Matthew turned the parable into an allegory of salvation history, with a focus on the time of the Church. The meal has become a celebration of the wedding feast that a king (God the Father) has prepared for his son (the risen Jesus). The sending of the slaves represents the mission of the preachers of the early church, who are rejected and martyred by the first guests, the people of Israel. The king retaliates by having the murderers slaughtered and their city burned, an echo of the Jewish war of 66-70 and the destruction of Jerusalem. The slaves' new mission symbolizes the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles. The group of new guests is a motley mix of all sorts. Matthew then brings the story of salvation to its conclusion with the parable of the guest without a wedding garment, probably created from scratch to reflect a theme dear to him, that of the separation of the wicked from the good in the last days, completed with "there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness".

Despite the fact that GP shares few elements with Matthew, we can nevertheless point out a few similarities.
1. GT uses the verb "to prepare" as in Mt 22:4 and the adjective "prepared" or "ready" as in Mt 22:4,8 and Lk 14:17.
2. In GP the first excuse concerns the business world, as mentioned in Matthew, using the same related word
3. In GP there's only one way to send slaves: to call people along the roads, as in Matthew.
4. In GP, the new guests are described as those "they find", which is also present twice in Matthew v. 9-10.
But it's with Luke's Gospel, where we don't find this strong allegorization of the parable, that GP has the most connivance.
1. GP begins his parable with "a man", as does Luke.
2. As in Luke, GP speaks of a "supper". However, this term appears to be redactional in Luke, since he uses it to include the beginning (v. 16-17) and the end (v. 24), a term we don't see anywhere else in Matthew or even in Luke-Acts, except when they copy Mk 12:39.
3. As in Lk, and unlike Mt, in GP there is only one slave and one delegation, with no harm done to the one sent.
4. GT's expression "the slave of him" is exactly the same as Luke's
5. As in Luke's case, GP's guests formulate a series of apologies, one for each guest.
6. As with Luke, the guests who refuse in GP are listed in the form: "the first", "another", "another", "another", the only difference being that in GP there are four guests who refuse, not three. The additional refusal in GP could be editorial, reflecting its polemic against business and money-related concerns.
7. As in Luke, the apology in GP is written in direct style, in the first person singular.
8. In the parable, Luke uses the Greek verb paraiteomai with a meaning unique in the whole Bible: "have me (as) having been excused [from a social obligation I have already accepted]". However, GP borrows the Greek word into the Coptic text as it stands, and constructs a lame sentence. We have a clear indication that GP is familiar with this Lucan version of the parable
9. In both GP and Luke, the third excuse includes the phrase "I am not able to come".
10. In both GP and Luke, the slave returns to his master to give him a report.
11. The master's reaction is introduced in almost the same way in GP and Luke: "the master of the house said to slave of him" (Lk 14:21) || "The master said to the slave of him".
12. The master's order to the slave for the second sending in Luke is similar to the master's order in GP: "Go out into the roads" (Lk 14:23) || "Go along the roads", and the aim is the same: to bring people to the meal.
We must therefore conclude that GP knew Luke's version of the parable, which he modified in his own way, just as he knew Matthew's version, from which he borrowed a few words. And all this reflects the same approach he takes to the parable of the evil tenants of the vineyard. So, we can't use the Gospel of Thomas as an independent source, since it uses the synoptic narratives. But none of this matters, because the existence of the two versions in tradition M and tradition L is enough for us to use the multiple attestation criterion and trace the parable back to the historical Jesus.

The Talents/Pounds (Mt 25:14-30 || Lk 19:11-17)

This is a very literal translation of the Matthew and Luke versions of the parable. Words or parts of words identical between Matthew and Luke have been highlighted in blue. Words or parts of words in Mark that are also found in Matthew and Luke have been underlined.

Matthew 25	Luke 19

14a For just as a man going on a journey,	12 Therefore he said, "A certain man of noble birth went into a country distant to receive for himself a kingdom and to return.
14b-15 he called his own slaves and he gave as a share to them the possessions of him, and to one he gave five talents, then to one two, then to one a single (talent), to each according to his own strength, and he went on a journey.	13 Then, having called ten slaves of himself he gave to them ten minas and said toward them, 'Do business until that I come back.'
	14 Then, the citizens of him hated him and sent a delegation after him saying, 'We do not want this (man) to reign upon us.'
16-18 Immediately having gone, the (one) five talents having received traded in them and gained five others. Likewise the (one) the two (talents) gained two others. Then the (one) the one (talent) having received, having gone away, dug in (the) ground and hid the piece of silver of the lord of him.
19 Then, after much time comes the lord of the slaves these and settles account with them.	15 And it came to pass in the to come back of him having received the kingdom and he said to call to him the slaves those to whom he has given the money, in order that he might know what they have gained by trade.
20 And having come near the (one) the five talents having received, he offered five other talents saying, "Lord, five talents to me you gave as a share. Behold, five other talents I gained."	16 Then, came up the first saying, 'Lord, the mina of you has produce ten minas.'
21 He was declaring to him the lord of him, "Well done, slave good and faithful, upon a few things you were faithful, upon many things I will appoint you. Enter into the joy of the lord of you."	17 And said to him, 'Well done, indeed, good slave, for in a very little (thing) faithful you showed yourself, be having authority over ten cities.'
22 [Then] having come near also the (one) the two talents (having received) he said, "Lord, two talents to me you gave as a share, behold tow other talents I gained."	18 Also came the second saying, 'The mina of you, lord, it made five minas.'
23 He was declaring the lord of him, "Well done, slave godd and faithful, upon a few this you were faithful, upon many I will apoint you. Enter into the joy of the lord of you."	19 Then he say to this (man), 'You also, be over five cities.'
24a Then, having come near also the (one) the single talent having received, he said, "Lord,	20a And the other came saying, 'Lord,
24b-25 I knew you that hard you are a man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering from where you did not scatter. And having been afraid, having gone away, I hid the talent of you in the ground. Behold, you have the (what belongs) to you.	20b-21 behold the mina of you the one I was having lying in store in a piece of cloth. For I was afraid of you, because a man harsh you are, you take up what you did not lay down and you reap what you did not sow.'
26 Then, having answered the lord of him, he said to him, "Wicked servent and lazy, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather from where I did not scatter.	22 He says to him, "Out of the mouth of you I judge you, wicked slave. You knew that I, a man harsh I am, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow.
27 It was necessary therefore for you to cast the pieces of silver of me to the bankers, and having come, I, I would have received back perchance the my own with interest.	23 And why did you not give of me the piece of silver upon the bank? And I, having come, with interest I would have collected it.'
28 Therefore take up from him the talent and give to the (one) having the ten talents.	24 And to those having stand by he said, 'Take up from him the mina and give to the (one) having ten minas.'
29 For to everyone having, it will be given and he will have in abundance, then to the (one) not having also what he has will taken up from him.	25-26 And they said to him, 'Lord he has ten minas.' - 'I say to you that to everyone having, it will be given, then to the (one) not having also what he has will taken up.
30 And the worthless slave, cast out into the darkness the outer, there will be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth."	27 Furthermore, the enemies of me these the ones having not be willing me to reign upon them, lead here and slay them before me.'"

The Question of Sources and Redaction in the Versions of Matthew and Luke

The parable of the talents/mines differs from that of the Great Supper in that Matthew's version of the latter contained a subplot (the murder of the messengers and the burning of the murderers' city), whereas it is now Luke who presents us with a subplot (a notable who goes abroad to receive royal status). Another point distinguishes the two parables in that those of the talents/mines has no parallel in the Gospel according to Thomas.

The title immediately raises a small problem. Matthew's version is universally known as the Parable of the Talents. Now, the term "talent" originally denoted a unit of weight, which in Jesus' time came to designate an extremely high monetary unit: six thousand denarii and thus around twenty years' wages for a day laborer; and thus five talents, the amount entrusted to the first servant, is the equivalent of a hundred years' wages. But in everyday language since the 15th century, the word has come to designate an individual's innate abilities and aptitudes. In Luke, the "mine" represents a smaller monetary unit: one mine is equivalent to one hundred denarii, i.e. three months' wages for a day laborer.

The major question to be answered concerns the source of Matthew's and Luke's versions: are they two different sources that came to Matthew and Luke in the form of the M and L tradition, or is it the same source, known as Q document, that Matthew and Luke would have reworked in their own way? In the first case, we can use the criterion of multiple attestation to argue that the parable goes back to the historical Jesus, in the second case we can't demonstrate anything. To answer this question, we'll proceed step by step, as we did with the parable of the Great Supper.
1. First, we'll try to isolate the lowest common denominator of the two versions, a kind of basic structure or skeleton underpinning Matthew's and Luke's versions.
2. Then we'll analyze the words, phrases and syntax to see what's in common and whether the story can be attributed to the Q document.
3. We will then examine Matthew's version to identify his editorial work.
4. We'll also take a look at Luke's version to identify his editorial work.
5. Combining the results of our analysis, we should be able to establish a hypothetical form of the parable that goes back to the historical Jesus.
Let's take these points in question form.
1. Can we isolate the minimal story that Matthew and Luke have in common?
  1. There is an introduction where the characters are introduced: a man, about to leave on a journey, who calls his slaves
  2. The plot begins: the man entrusts a sum of money to his slaves. The mandate is implicit in Matthew, explicit in Luke: make the money grow
  3. The master returns and holds a reckoning with his slaves: the lord settles his account with his slaves in Matthew, he wants to know how much they have earned in Luke
  4. The first two slaves give a successful report
    1. In Matthew, the profit is greater in absolute terms, where the first added five talents to his assets, and the second two talents. In Luke, the gain is proportionally enormous: 1,000 percent for the first, 500 percent for the second.
    2. The slaves are praised by the master. In Matthew's case, the master promises more responsibility (probably more money) and invites them to share his joy. In Luke's case, the reward is political, i.e. the governance of several cities according to the number of mines they have brought in.
  5. The third slave gives his report: in Matthew and Luke this stage occupies the greatest space, as it is the climax of the narrative. And it's in this part that the vocabulary of the two evangelists is most similar. The drama of the conflict arises from the fact that this third slave has not fulfilled his mandate, revealed at the beginning by Matthew, only at the end by Luke. This long scene unfolds step by step:
    1. The explanation for the slave's inactivity is psychological: he was afraid, and the master is strict and demanding.
    2. The master's traits are borrowed from the world of agriculture: he reaps where he has not sown
    3. Fear led the servant to hide the sum received
    4. The master's angry reaction consists of :
      - to condemn the slave: bad slave
      - mockingly repeating the slave's perception of him
      - complaining that the money could have been entrusted to bankers to earn interest
    5. Master punishes slave by transferring money to most productive slave
    6. The master's final gesture is justified by a maxim: to him who has shall be given, but to him who has not, even that which he has shall be taken away.
    7. The original parable could have ended with severe punishment for the third slave, but due to the editorial work of both evangelists, we can't be sure.
  What have we discovered?
  1. This is a very coherent story, and not just with similar motifs. We are therefore justified in concluding that we have only one story, retold differently by Matthew and Luke.
  2. The same cannot be said of the subplot constituted by Luke's vv. 12b,14,27, often called the Pretender to the Throne, where the notable goes to a distant country to receive the kingship, despite the opposition of his subjects, and on his return has those who opposed his kingship slaughtered. This subplot doesn't have enough elements to constitute a parable with its own message. How did it become entangled with the main parable?
    
    Firstly, it's probably a reference to Herod Archelaus who, on the death of his father, Herod the Great, in 4 BC, who massacred 3,000 of his opponents as they offered sacrifices in the temple, went to Rome to have Caesar Augustus confirm his father's wish that he should be the successor king. Meanwhile, a delegation of Jews and Samaritans travelled to Rome with a petition demanding that Archelaus should not be king because of his record of cruelty. Moreover, within the Herodian family itself there were family rivalries, particularly on the part of his brother Herod Antipas. Augustus therefore decided to grant him the kingship with the title of ethnarch, but limiting it to Judea, Ituraea and Samaria, and granting Galilee and Perea to Antipas.
    
    It's inconceivable that such an allusion to political intrigue could come from the mouth of the peasant Jesus, who lived in Galilee during the peaceful reign of Antipas, when few in his audience would have known or remembered these events. So, for most biblical scholars, this subplot does not go back to the historical Jesus. It was most likely added by Luke himself. As we can see from his two works, the evangelist showed a constant interest in the interaction between, on the one hand, Judaism and nascent Christianity and, on the other, the Roman Empire and its rulers. Moreover, the insertion of this subplot contributes to his grand theological project of presenting Jesus as a king on his entry into Jerusalem, the ancient capital of King David, a theme that continues throughout the passion narrative. With the insertion of this subplot, Luke is able to use the parable he receives from tradition to represent the various stages of salvation history: the relationship with his disciples during his public ministry, his departure to a distant land through his death-resurrection-ascension to receive the kingship of his Father, the successful mission of some disciples, less successful for others, his return at the end of time when the final judgment takes place, with its rewards and punishments.
2. Can the parable of the slaves entrusted with a sum of money, found in Matthew and Luke, be attributed to the Q document?
  
  A first vague definition of the Q document is to refer to any material found only in Matthew and Luke. But, as we have seen with the parable of the Great Supper, this is not enough, since, despite certain similarities in the versions of Matthew and Luke, this parable does not come from the Q document. So we need to add criteria such as a certain critical mass of similar words, phrases and grammatical constructions in roughly the same order. What about our parable?
  1. In our presentation above of the literal translation of the two versions, we have colored in blue similar words or expressions with a similar sequence: man, slave, "he gave", "saying : Lord", "to him", "good slave", faithful, "also... lord", "also that one", lord, "you that", "a man you are", "you did not sow", "to him", "bad slave", "you knew that", "I did not sow", "from me + money", "and having come I / and me having come", "if need be... with interest / with interest... if need be", "take up from him", "and give to him who has the ten", "to everyone (man) who has, it will be given, then from him who does not have even what he has will be taken up". Only the final verse of each version (Mt 25:30 || Lk 19:27) certainly does not belong to the Q document.
  2. To these considerations we can add words that share the same form in the dictionary, but not the same grammatical form in Greek: "he called / having called", "of the slaves/the slaves", "having come near / he came", "also the / also... the" (2nd slave), "having come near / he came" (3rd slave), "reaping / you reap", "you did not".
  3. These similarities must be measured in the overall context of the number of Greek words in each version: 302 words in Matthew, 224 in Luke. If we omit definite articles and conjunctions such as "and" and "then", we arrive at 52 identical words, which isn't very impressive. Even if we added similar words from the dictionary, but with a different grammatical form, it would only be six more words. Finally, many of the words in the parable are found frequently elsewhere throughout the Gospels, words like: man, slave, give, have, master (lord), say, he/it, good, bad, that, know, come, with, take. If we subtract these frequent words, we're left with almost nothing in particular: good (and faithful) slave, "bad slave", "I have not sown", money, "with interest".
    
    In fact, the only set of identical words in the same order is the proverb quoted by the master ("to everyone who has, it will be given, and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken up", Mt 25:29 || Lk 19:26). However, there is a consensus among biblical scholars that this phrase was not part of the original parable. Moreover, the same proverb is repeated in other passages in the Gospels (see Mk 4:25 and repeated with variations by Mt 13:12 and Lk 8:18b). What's more, it doesn't fit in well with the parable, since the third slave had something, not nothing, and his sole aim was to return the good he had received intact. Now, the point of the parable concerns the risks to be taken in order to obtain a superior gain, failing which one loses everything. This is not at all the message of the proverb. In short, the only phrase that is virtually identical in both versions would not belong to the original parable, but would probably have been added fairly early on in its oral transmission.
    
    What can we conclude? The two versions of the parable do not contain that critical mass of similarities in vocabulary and grammatical construction to justify their attribution to Q document.
3. Can we detect any clues to Matthew's editorial additions or modifications to the M tradition he received?
  
  A first observation concerns the placement of the parable in the Gospel as a whole, and more specifically its placement within the great eschatological discourse (ch. 24 and 25). This discourse comprises two main parts: in the first part, Matthew simply repeats Mark's eschatological discourse (Mk. 13), which he modifies slightly; in the second part, he makes extensive use of the Q document and the material M that is peculiar to him, giving them a strong parenetic note. In this second part, he displays his taste for triads: first, three similitudes exhorting vigilance (24:37-44: Noah's generation, two men and two women, the householder and the thief), then another triad of parables of increasing length: the faithful servant (24:45-51), the ten virgins (25:1-13), and our parable of the talents (25:14-30). This is the last parable in the whole Gospel. What follows is the Last Judgment scene, which is not a parable. So, as the last parable, Matthew has given the story of the sums entrusted to the slaves a prominent place.
  
  But how do we spot Matthew's hand in this parable? Our main tool is to get to know Matthew's passion for well-structured, well-ordered things. For example, the first part of the Sermon on the Mount includes three similitudes, followed by three longer parables, then six antitheses and three pious practices. After this Sermon, Matthew presents three groups of three miracles (ch. 8-9). This love of groups of three and multiples of three will guide us in our analysis. For our parable can be divided into three sections, the length of which increases as the story progresses, giving more attention to each slave.
  1. First section (v. 14-15): the man calls his slaves and entrusts them with his possessions.
    1. To the first, five talents,
    2. To the second, two talents,
    3. To the third, one talent,
      "to each according to his own strength, and he went on a journey"
  2. Section section (v. 16-18): the activity of the three slaves with various results
    1. The first works with five talents and wins five more
    2. The second in the same way wins two more
    3. The third hides his talent in the ground
  3. Third section (v. 19-30) : "after much time" (v. 19: the master returns and settles accounts with the slaves:
    (i-a) v. 20 : the first slave, having come near
    1. Having receive five talents,
    2. He gained five other talents
    3. Repeating in direct style the events of v. 16
    (i-b) v. 21 : his lord replied
    1. By praising the slave,
    2. Giving the reason for a great reward (faithful...)
    3. By announcing the reward (entering into the joy of the lord)
    (ii-a) v. 22 : the second slave, having come near
    1. Having received two talents,
    2. He gained two other talents
    3. Repeating in direct style the events of v. 17
    (ii-b) v. 23 : his lord replied
    1. By praising the slave,
    2. Giving the reason for a great reward (faithful...)
    3. By announcing the reward (entering into the joy of the lord)
    (iii-a) v. 24-25 : the third slave, having come near (the pattern is broken only by recalling the fact that he has received a talent and providing a very different report)
    1. v. 24b Reason for his action (I know you're a hard man...)
    2. v. 25a Report on his action: I hid...
    3. v. 25b Give back money without any gain
    (iii-b) v. 26-30 : his lord replied (Matthew's multiple conclusions stack up, creating two groups of three)
    1. v. 26a Denouncing slaves as "wicked and lazy"
    2. v. 26b Mocking repetition of his description by the slave
    3. v. 27 Explanation of the epithet "lazy" (should have gone to the bankers)
    4. v. 28 First punishment: take away your talent and give it to the first one
    5. v. 29 A proverbial reason for punishment: to every (man) who has, there will be given...
    6. v. 30 Second punishment: the useless slave is cast out into the darkness...
  This overview of a highly structured story in groups of three allows us to make some preliminary observations.
  1. We can clearly see that the third section occupies a large part of the parable's space, underlining its importance and demonstrating that it is its climax.
  2. In the third section, the activity and rewards of the first two slaves are presented in repetitive, conventional formulas that recall what we already know.
  3. In contrast, the description of the third slave's behavior is not at all conventional or repetitive, but lively, drawing on psychology (fear) and irony (the master repeats the slave's portrait of himself). The story ends with two punishments, one light, involving the transfer of the sum entrusted to the first slave (perhaps to shame him), the other harsh and definitive.
  All this confirms what we've already said.
  1. The third section contains the focal point of the parable.
  2. The exchange between the master and the third slave contains the central message of the parable, and fits in perfectly with the theme that runs through ch. 25, indeed the whole gospel. Accountability awaits not only unbelievers, but also and above all believers who claim to be loyal servants of their Master - especially Church leaders. In particular, they must ensure that they do what they say, that they are good trees bearing good fruit, that in short they do the will of their heavenly Father.
  If the general structure and main theme reflect Matthew's handwriting, can we then detect Matthew's typical words and turns of phrase?
  1. First section (v. 14-15)
    - In v. 14 we have the conjunction "just as". (hōsper) which Matthew uses more than the others: Mt = 10; Mk = 0; Lk = 2; Jn = 2; Acts = 3. And in the second part of the eschatological discourse, it recurs four times (24: 27,37; 25: 14,32), cementing together this parenetic section.
    - Again in v. 14, the verb "to give as a share" (paradidōmi) is completely Matthean: Mt = 31; Mk = 22; Lk = 17; Jn = 15; Acts = 16; Luke's version only has "give" (didōmi).
    - Similarly, the use of the expression "his possessions" may represent an effort to link this parable with the previous one about the faithful slave whom the master establishes over "his possessions".
    - In v. 15 Matthew describes the sharing of possessions with the expressions: "to one..., then to one..., then to one..." which are typical of his style and absent from Luke.
    - The enormity of the sum distributed is typical of Matthew, to emphasize the greatness of God's gift.
  2. Second section (v. 16-18)
    - When we consider the fact that (1) this section is totally superfluous, as it will be repeated unchanged in the third section, (2) that its presence is simply to ensure that there are three sections, (3) that it repeats the three-stage subdivision that will be developed in the third section, (4) that the equivalent in Luke is totally absent, then we must conclude that this section is most likely a pure and simple creation of Matthew.
    - This impression is reinforced by some of Matthew's typical words and expressions: "immediately", "having gone" which is actually superfluous, "having received", "he traded", "he gained", "he hid".
  3. Third section (v. 19-30)
    - The expression "Then, after much time" takes up the theme of the delay of the parousia, emphasized by Matthew in three longer parables (24: 45 - 25: 30). The word "time" echoes the parable of the faithful servant: "My master is delayed" (24: 48) and as well the one of the Bridesmaids: "As the bridegroom was delayed" (25: 5).
    - Matthew and Luke agree that there are three accounts, which would indicate that we probably have the heart of the original parable here.
    - Nevertheless, this section contains a number of Matthean words: "having come to him" or "having approached him": Mt = 51; Mk = 5; Lk = 10; Jn = 1; Acts = 10; the verb "to settle one's account" found only in Matthew, here and twice in the parable of the ruthless debtor (Mt 18:23-24) in the M tradition; the monetary unit "talent" found only here and in Matthew's parable of the ruthless debtor (Mt 18:24); the verb "he presented" is typically Matthean : Mt = 15; Mk = 3; Lk = 4; Jn = 2; Acts = 3; the verb "he gained" is typically Matthaean: Mt = 6; Mk = 1; Lk = 1; Jn = 0; Acts = 1.
    - "good and faithful slave". Luke simply has "good slave". As Matthew tends throughout his Gospel to add adjectives to his sources, we can assume that it was he who added "faithful".
    - The fact that the second slave repeats everything that was said about the first slave is also typical of Matthew's love of parallels and well-balanced sentences.
    - There are some discrepancies between Matthew and Luke. While both use the agricultural metaphor in v. 24 ("man, reaping where you did not sow"), Matthew is the only one to continue with this metaphor ("gathering where you did not scatter"), with Luke turning instead to the financial metaphor ("you take away what you did not deposit [in the bank]"). Here, it is impossible to determine which of the two evangelists reflects the original parable.
    - Similarly, Matthew tells us that the third slave hid the money he received in the ground, while Luke tells us that he put the money he received in a cloth. It is impossible to determine which of the two versions reflects the original parable, since both methods were possible in the Jewish world.
    - In v. 26, "Bad and lazy slave" echoes the "good and faithful slave" of vv. 21 and 23, a balance that Matthew likes (Luke has only "bad slave").
    - The original parable was probably about the first slave who ended up with ten pieces of silver, as we see in Matthew, for Luke's text incongruously says: "Take the mine away from him and give to the one with the ten mines" when, on the one hand, the master never told the slave to keep the earned mines, and on the other hand, the reward consisted of having authority over ten cities.
    - As we have already pointed out, the proverb "to everyone (man) having, it will be given, then from him not having even what he has will be taken away" fits badly with the parable and was probably added very early on in the oral transmission
    - In v. 30, the expression "the outer darkness, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" is an all-purpose conclusion from Matthew, found several times in his gospel (8: 12; 13: 42,50; 22: 13; 24: 51).
  What can we conclude? The original parable has clearly been rewritten by Matthew with his own vocabulary and style. It is virtually impossible to reconstruct word for word the original parable that Matthew received from the M tradition. We can, however, try to sketch out what this parable might have been.
  1. Summons of the Slaves and Departure of the Master. At this convocation, the master hands out monetary units to his slaves. The denouement in Matthew's and Luke's versions suggest that the sum given to the first may have amounted to five units, to two units for the second and to one unit for the third.
  2. Return of the Master and the Reckoning. During this reckoning the master reacts to each slave's report.
    1. a. The first slave increased his assets to 10 units
      b. The master praises and rewards him with more property and responsibility
    2. a. The second slave doubled his holdings to 4 units
      b. The master acts in the same way as with the first
    3. a. The third slave returns the entrusted unit he has kept in a safe place, without taking the risk of doing business, for fear of the master he considers demanding and greedy.
      b. The master replies to the third slave:
      1. Calling him "wicked" because he knew the master's wishes and should have put the money in the bank to earn interest
      2. By punishing him by taking back the coin and handing it to the person who had ten coins.
      3. By basing his punishment on the proverb: "every (man) having, he shall be given, then..." (as already noted, this proverb was not part of the parable, but was added early in its oral transmission, before reaching Matthew and Luke)
      4. [Each evangelist adds his own conclusion]
4. Can we detect any clues to Luke's editorial additions or modifications to the L tradition he received?
  1. The context
    
    Luke inserted this parable into Jesus' journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. But whereas Mark's journey takes up a single chapter (ch. 10), Luke extends it over ten chapters, covering half his gospel (Lk 9:51 - 19:28). This journey is not just about a place, but about the salvific event decreed by God's plan: the ascent to heaven through passion, cross, death, resurrection and ascension.
    
    This context sheds light on the meaning of the parable of the mines. Recall that in the previous scene, Jesus met Zacchaeus in Jericho, at which point he makes two declarations of salvation: "Today salvation has come to this house, for he too is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Lk 19:9-10). So, 1) salvation has become an already present event, and 2) this salvation comes through the coming of the Son of Man, Jesus, who saves what was lost. The very fact of affirming a salvation present through the coming of Jesus could easily lead the enthusiastic crowd to believe that this is the apocalyptic event foreseen for the end times, and that the complete coming of God's reign has arrived. And indeed, the parable will be followed by Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where the disciples will proclaim on the Mount of Olives that he is the coming king, the new David returning to his capital.
    
    This context explains Luke's introduction to the parable of the mines after the encounter with Zacchaeus: "As the people listened to these words, Jesus added a parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and they imagined that God's reign would be manifested immediately". It's typical of Luke to meticulously introduce his parables to give them his own theological orientation. But given this context of an enthusiastic crowd imagining that God's reign is about to arrive, how does Luke ensure that the parable of the mines serves to temper the crowd's enthusiasm? He does so by adding the subplot of the pretender to the throne.
  2. The subplot of the pretender to the throne (Lk 19:14,27)
    
    Remember that this is a subplot, as the main plot remains i) the absence of the master, ii) the handing over of money and the command to do business, iii) the return of the master and the reckoning, iv) the praise and reward of the first two slaves, v) the apology of the third slave who didn't take a risk, vi) the rebuke of the third slave, vii) the handing over of his money to the first slave, viii) and the concluding proverb. But in the original parable, no reason is given for the master's departure. Luke is interested in updating the story of Jesus and the Church in the context of 1st-century Roman history. So he uses a common practice of the time, when a ruler or aristocrat went to Rome to receive the status of king, or at least to have his power confirmed, to explain the master's departure for a significant period of time. He feels all the more justified, knowing the events surrounding Herod Archelaus, who had gone to Rome to receive the kingship, and the Jewish and Samaritan embassy with a petition for him not to be.
    
    This subplot is added in two verses, first v. 14, after the master's departure ("Then his citizens hated him, and they sent an embassy after him, saying, 'We do not want this one to reign over us'"), then v. 27, after the proverb concluding the parable ("As for my enemies, those who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence"). Clearly, these two verses have nothing to do with the main plot and could be removed without changing the meaning of the parable. At most, it offers the curious listener an explanation for the master's departure and why he is able to reward his servants by granting them authority over several cities. This subplot is indeed Luke's work, and right from his introduction in v. 12 ("A certain man of noble birth went into a distant country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return") he makes sure to set the two plots in motion.
  3. The subplot as Luke's creation
    
    A number of arguments support this conclusion
    1. The story of the pretender to the throne is too closely modelled on the particular story of Archelaus. And no other NT author has shown such an interest in the history and politics of the Roman and Palestinian world. Both his Gospel and his Acts show his fascination with Herod's family.
    2. As we saw earlier, almost all the introductions that precede a parable in the L tradition are Luke's own creations. This would also be the case here in v. 11, with the story of the people who imagine that the reign of God is coming. If we add to this the fact that the conclusion of v. 28 ("With these words, Jesus set out to go up to Jerusalem"), which is included with the introduction, and the general framework of the great journey to Jerusalem (ch. 9-19) are a creation of Luke, it's natural to think that, if the two verses of the subplot don't fit in well with the parable of the mines, but are consistent with the general context, this means that they too are a creation of Luke.
    3. In the parable itself, the two subplot verses make no sense, except as a Lucan allegory of a Jesus who ascends physically to Jerusalem, but spiritually and soteriologically to his royal reign in heaven, an ascension that takes place through his passion, death, resurrection and ascension. All this colors the parable, as the slaves become the members of the Church to whom the absent Jesus has entrusted gifts which they must bring to fruition through mission, in particular through the growth of members in the Church. On his return, Jesus will exercise judgment, rewarding zealous members, punishing parasites, and severely punishing those who opposed His rule (the Jewish authorities).
  4. The main plot
    
    What comes from the tradition received by Luke and what comes from his editorial work?
    - In v. 12, Luke intervenes in two ways: he adds the indefinite pronoun "a certain" to the word man, as he very often does, and then he elevates this man to the rank of "noble birth" in order to prepare the secondary narrative of the pretender to the throne. Originally, he may have been a simple businessman.
    - In v. 13, Luke's version describes a man who owns ten mines and distributes them to ten slaves, one mine each. So, each receives the same amount.
    - Vv. 15-20 somewhat contradict Luke's account, where the man had given a mine to ten slaves, and now, despite the call of all the slaves ("and he said to call to him the slaves those to whom he has given the money"), the reckoning features only three slaves: "the first", "the second", "and the other". This is a sign that Matthew's version with three slaves reflects the original parable. Why would Luke increase the number of slaves to ten at the beginning of the story? Perhaps Luke felt that a larger number of slaves was more appropriate for a man of "noble birth".
    - What about monetary units? Did the original parable speak of a talent or a mine? Most biblical scholars favor the latter, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the monetary unit of mine would be more appropriate for a businessman with only three slaves. Moreover, Matthew tends to increase the amount of money, and the word talent is typical of his vocabulary, which is also found in the parable of the ruthless debtor. Finally, the word "mine" does not belong to Luke's vocabulary and is only found here in the parable.
    - In the original parable, did the master give an equal amount to each slave, as in Luke, or different amounts, as in Matthew? It's virtually impossible to answer this question with any certainty. One might think that Matthew was more faithful to the original parable with different amounts, since he seems to have respected the number of slaves more evenly. But this is pure conjecture.
    - What about the reward given to the first two slaves? Both versions present the master praising these slaves for being faithful "in small things". This confirms that the original parable spoke of "mine" and not "talent", because the value of the talent was no small thing. Then, in Matthew, the reward takes the very general and vague form of "over many things you I will establish (more responsibility for finances?)" and "enter into the joy of your lord". Luke's reward is more specific and practical: the governance of ten and five cities (with related revenues). If the original parable was about a simple merchant, the granting of governance over cities is impossible. Unfortunately, if this parable referred to a reward, this reference has been lost.
    - Matthew's and Luke's versions are even more similar at the climax of the story with the third slave. In Matthew, the slave begins by 1) describing the demanding portrait of his master, 2) continuing with the paralyzing fear this has aroused in him, and 3) ending with the handing over of the coin. In Luke, the order is reversed: the slave 1) hands over the coin first, then 2) explains that he placed it in a cloth for safety, and finally 3) confesses his fear based on his perception of the master's demanding nature. It's impossible to determine what the order was in the original parable. The common thread is the image of the greedy, ruthless businessman. Another common thread is the master's retort regarding the slave as wicked and lamenting the absence of simple interests.
    - The original parable would have ended with the master asking the audience to take the coin away from the third slave and give it to the one who had ten monetary units. Here, Matthew seems to reflect the original parable better than Luke, whose account never mentions that the first slave had the right to keep the ten mines earned, and so the phrase "give to the one with the ten mines" makes no sense in Luke. It is likely that the original parable only mentioned this handing over of the monetary unit to the first slave as a punishment.
    - The proverb in v. 26 ("to everyone who has, it will be given, but to him who has not, even what he has will be taken away"), as we have already stated, fits poorly with the parable and does not belong to the original parable. The third slave has already handed over his coin, with no hint of keeping it. So we can't say he has anything. The proverb in v. 26 is probably derived from popular wisdom, which observes that "the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer", even though the rich work little and the poor work hard; all this is at odds with our parable, where those who worked hard were rewarded. Note that this proverb lends itself to various interpretations, since it is found elsewhere in the Gospels (Mk 4:25 || Mt 13:12 || Lk 8:18b).
5. What final conclusion can be drawn from the primitive form of the parable?
  
  After removing the additions of each evangelist, we arrive at this sketch.
  1. Introduction: A man was about to leave on a journey
  2. The Commission: He called his slaves and gave them mines: to the first five mines, to the second two and to the third one (implicitly at least, he's asking for business).
  3. The Return and Reckoning: On his return, the man called his slaves to account for their transactions and profits. He met each one individually:
    1. a. The first slave came and said: "Master, I made five more mines".
      b. The master said to him: "Well done, good slave! Because you have been faithful in a few things, I will entrust you with many. Keep the ten mines.
    2. a. The second came and said: "Master, I made two more mines".
      b. He said to him: "You, too, keep the four mines.
    3. a. The other came, saying: "Master, here is your mine, which I have hidden in the ground. For I was afraid of you, for you are a demanding man; you reap what you did not sow".
      b. He said, "You knew that I reap what I did not sow. Why didn't you put my money in the bank, so that when I came back I could get it back with interest?"
  4. The Final Judgment:
    1. Depriving the third slave and shaming him: "Take the mine away from him and give it to the one who has ten".
    2. It is possible that a more severe punishment concluded the original story. The proverb must have been added very early in the oral transmission before it reached Matthew and Luke.
The Meaning of the Parable of the Talents/Minas in the Ministry of Jesus

Can the parable of the talents/mines be traced back to the historical Jesus? We now have the answer.
1. The multiple attestation criterion
  
  First, we can mention the criterion of multiple attestation, since the parable has been preserved by two different traditions, the one called M received by Matthew and the one called L received by Luke. This means that the parable can be traced back to the historical Jesus.
2. The criterion of coherence
  
  We might also mention the criterion of coherence. Subsequent volumes of this quest for the historical Jesus have shown that the heart of Jesus' proclamation concerned the kingdom of God, i.e. the exercise of God's power to establish his reign over Israel and the whole world is coming, and in fact is already present in some way in Jesus' words and actions, and this reign will soon be total.
  
  This power and reign is first and foremost God's initiative and work, and so there's something wrong with talking about "hastening the coming of God's reign" or "building God's reign" or even "collaborating in God's reign". Jesus only asks us to respond to this coming, which is inexorable and partially present in his ministry. We respond to this coming by accepting a radical change in our lives to bring them into line with the way Jesus interprets and actualizes God's will. The New Testament speaks of a new covenant, and like all covenants in the Bible, a covenant implies a promise of reward.
  
  Talking about rewards is a sensitive subject. Yet this is the same Jesus who proclaimed the Beatitudes to the poor and hungry, assuring them that God and God alone will fill them, and who also promised his disciples that, if they lose their lives, they will save them (Mk 8: 35 || Mt 10: 39 || Lc 17: 33 || Jn 12: 25), or who also promised the Twelve that, if they left everything to follow him, they would sit on twelve thrones in the last days to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Of course, this is not an ethic of reciprocity: you give to me, I give to you. Jesus' disciple does good to others simply as a reflection of the goodness of God, Creator and Father, with the assurance that God will not be surpassed in generosity in the end. In making such a promise, Jesus does not instill a spirit of claiming one's rights from God or calculating what God owes the disciples. On the contrary, Jesus instills a radical freedom to be generous and loving, because God will more than reward the disciples' finite good deeds with an infinite goodness that eludes calculation and strict retributive justice.
  
  There is a basic structure to Jesus' preaching: (1) The Creator God has exercised his sovereign initiative in freely choosing to make Israel his people and lead them to salvation. (2) This free gift of election and salvation in turn calls for the obedience of the people who have freely accepted to enter into a covenantal relationship with their God. (3) This obedience in turn leads to the fullness of eschatological blessings that God has promised his faithful people from the beginning. Gracious election leads to faithful obedience, which leads to eschatological reward.
  
  The parable of the mines is a perfect illustration of Jesus' preaching. The master of the parable exercises his sovereign initiative by giving his slaves money and responsibility. Indeed, in his total freedom as master of his slaves, he gives each slave precisely the amount of money he deems necessary. With the gift of money comes great responsibility; consequently, "good" slaves do their utmost to fulfill the mission entrusted to them. No specific reward has been promised for the completion of their mission, but their master is in fact incredibly generous in rewarding his loyal slaves at the moment of reckoning. Apparently, they keep the money they've earned while receiving greater responsibility for larger sums. On the other hand, slaves who shirk their duties are deprived of what they have been given and shamed in front of their peers. Thus, the structure of (1) a free gift that generates (2) a serious obligation that generates (3) an overflowing reward - a structure that lies at the heart of Jesus' overall message - also lies at the heart of the parable. While our argument in favor of authenticity rests primarily on the criterion of multiple attestation, the criterion of coherence adds its stone to the edifice.
3. The audience of the parable
  
  Who was Jesus addressing with this parable? Some biblical scholars have suggested that the audience would have been scribes, Pharisees or temple authorities - in other words, religious authorities who took the word of God enshrined in the Torah and buried it in the soil of their fastidious ritual observances, instead of making it widely available, practicable and fruitful for the ordinary people of the land (or perhaps even for pagans). This proposal clashes with the fact that two of the three slaves have done well and are the object of praise. But who are they?
  
  It's more likely that Jesus was addressing his disciples with this parable. It is both an exhortation and a warning. Jesus asks his disciples to live up to his call to leave everything behind and follow him. At the same time, he warns them that refusing the demands that come with the gift has serious consequences. Such a warning recurs throughout Jesus' preaching.
  
  All in all, considering the way this parable sums up the eschatological prophet's overall message to the people of Israel, it may be a mistake to restrict his audience to his disciples or to any group within Israel, as opposed to Israel as a whole. It's quite possible that Jesus adapted this parable a number of times to different audiences during his preaching tours, but always with the same underlying intention: to call Israel to fulfill its vocation as Israel at the end of time. Here we have one last striking example of why the dynamic, charged, tense and metaphorical discourse of Jesus' parables cannot be reduced to a precise "point" in a Sunday school lesson.

What can we conclude about the synoptic parables?

List of all chapters

John P. Meier, The Marginal Jew,v. 5, ch. 39: The Few, the Happy Few,pp 230-363

What do the parables reveal about the historical Jesus?

John P. Meier, The Marginal Jew,
v. 5, ch. 39: The Few, the Happy Few,
pp 230-363